The writer says, "let's embrace nuclear power now." But it has its own trade-offs, including waste disposal, groundwater consumption (if inland), and need for gov't insurance props because private insurance can't cover potential liabilities otherwise. The latter in particular seems like a Red Flag to me, especially now that we've seen some messy disasters.
Jim Lincoln wrote: excerpt from, "A stain on America's honor': Lindsey Graham says Trump's Syria pullout abandons Kurds, helps ISIS"
"Stain on America's honor" What honor is there in lobbing cruise missiles at people? If it's not worth our soldiers' blood, it's not worth it at all.
"Undone all the gains" What gains? The US just grandstands in its so-called leadership, but is too cowardly to fight a war it knows isn't in our vital interest. Trump knows and admits this, for once. No wonder the Obama/Clinton gangsters and Deep State hate him so.
And if Israel wants to fool with Syria, they can go right ahead. It's their neighborhood, not ours.
Jim Lincoln wrote: Neil, I have never approved of either Billy's or Frankie's ecumenism,
Then why did you direct people to a writer who tells this outrageous fib: "He [Billy] ministered for a lifetime without serious controversy or compromise" Or to a website that says this about itself: "We embrace and work alongside people of different faiths, erasing the lines of â€˜us vs. them." Sounds like Billy's ecumenism!
Jim Lincoln wrote: ... I did not care for either of the Grahams' ecumenical stances,
Sounds a bit Biden-ish: I was addressing the foolish opinion of the writer you quoted, not your own. Regardless of your history of TV watching, it is widely known that Graham collaborated with Catholics. Since you like quotes, here is one from a Jesuit[!] source:
"he defied his core audience by building bridges with Roman Catholics."
Some Southern states had anti-literacy laws, so the idea isn't new. What does one need math for when one receives Basic Income? I think this is the agenda behind such anti-educational proposals: ignorant morons are dependent and more easy to manipulate and control, just like American slaves were. Frederick Douglass recalled that learning how to read, while a slave, depressed him greatly, so in a way, the slaveowners had a point. BTW, Thos. "Stonewall" Jackson ignored this law, to his credit.
Even the Soviets would've considered this foolish, and produced some brilliant mathematicians.
The Quiet Christian wrote: .. that molecular biologists cannot deny the Designer and the genius behind what they study.
This is the classical Teleological Argument (e.g. Wm. Paley's Watchmaker), which was refuted centuries ago by David Hume: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleological_argument
Creation is convincing only to those who already believe; even if the Teleological Argument weren't fallacious (Circular Reasoning), it would still not convince a stubborn, unregenerate mind. The flesh profits nothing, John 6:63.
Leaving aside whether a student group is a duly organized church, it is better to continue meeting off-campus than to seek authorization from God-haters to meet on-campus.
It continues to amaze me how little regard Christians have for the many, detailed NT instructions on church practice, preferring backslidden (often sacerdotal) traditions instead. Pastors tell us to read the Bible, but when I do, I shake my head wondering how modern churches can justify what they do.
Because the Scientific Method is logically fallacious, and research often involves Conflict of Interest as well ("He who pays the piper calls the tune"), it can never achieve the certainty its credulous promoters claim it has.
The only thing constant about science is its varied conclusions!
Jim Lincoln wrote: A golden oldie article on the Jesuits, still true, unfortunately
"Unfortunately"!? What's this, nostalgia for Counter-Reformation Jesuits?
Why is it that Jesuits obsess Protestant conspiracy-mongers more than other Catholic sects? It's not as if they're still sneaking about trying to assassinate English monarchs. All Catholic orders are different species of the same false and wicked genus!
Perhaps Britain's very existence is destroying the planet (as the many victims of their Empire might testify, e.g. Potato Famine, Madras Famine). They can atone by nobly committing mass suicide. Reductio Ad Absurdum [or is it?].
Formalistic, pushbutton/coin-op worship is more in line with Catholicism, Anglicanism, Shinto, and Buddhism; no surprise that the Rosary resembles Buddhist prayer beads. To these people, God is a bellhop or servant since they deny His sovereignty.
BTW, contrary to the news item title, the remark about Protestants was in jest. But at least robots don't [yet] molest women and children.
Jim Lincoln wrote: Neil, of course BP can predict it, because strangely then other oil companies are doing the funding for some of it.
That's not proof but merely wishful thinking. Besides, "renewable" sources have trade-offs; for example, wind is reliable in only a few places and solar is useless at night and overcast unless augmented with an array of costly and metal-intensive storage batteries, which have logistical problems if widely used.
Jim Lincoln wrote: Neil, where did you [get the?] URL for the the first article?
Internet search engine. A name like that isn't hard to find.
Unless BP has the gift of prophecy, how could they know what happens two decades hence? Extrapolating a graph beyond the current year is Induction, a formal fallacy. And is it prudent to believe everything self-interested corporations claim? They could be publishing cynical feel-good propaganda to head off political persecution. Or else they are as self-deluded as the Earth worshipers.
Jim Lincoln wrote: excerpt from, "Renewable energy is now a compelling alternative as it costs less than fossil fuels, says Michael Milken"
None of those points on the face of it make sense: 1. The claim naively assumes investments always result in efficiency improvements; 2. It is not shown how increased wind power usage necessarily reduced energy costs overall. It could just be a coincidence; 3. What's a "big way?" And which critics? No specifics given.
If renewable energy really costs less than fossil fuels now, then show the figures. And there would be no need for punitive EPA rules, IRS rebates, etc., if this were the case. Otherwise it's just superstitious, magical thinking, which comes easily in a culture increasingly receptive to the occult and witchcraft.
Mike wrote: ...One might hope Trump wouldn't do this. Acting like Democrats won't cut him any favors with the country.
I get your point, but in a way it makes sense: recall that EPA was founded by Nixon's executive order in 1970. Contrary to what I believed as a youth, Nixon was full-on Progressive, but with less media charisma. Democrats hated him for his personality, not so much his policies, just like Trump. They started the Vietnam War but blamed him for the bombings to compel peace negotiations. It almost worked but for Watergate.
I have a Vietnamese coworker who told me all the S. Vietnamese really wanted was weapons, not US troops, which was what Nixon realized.